Northern Ireland Assembly, 14 October 2002

89 contributions from 28 members. The official report.

Assembly Business: Suspension of Assembly

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received a letter this morning from the Secretary of State, which I wish to draw to the attention of the House. The letter reads as follows:

"It was with very great regret that I made the Order this morning to suspend the devolved institutions, in order to stabilise the current political situation in Northern Ireland. It was clear that it was not for the time being possible to hold together an inclusive power-sharing Executive, since the confidence within the community necessary to underpin it had broken down.

I nevertheless believe the Agreement has delivered enormous benefits, and points the way forward. I and my ministerial team will seek to carry forward good government within Northern Ireland, to work with the Irish Government and the parties to restore the devolved institutions as soon as we can, and to remove once and for all concerns about the commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means.

I want to work energetically in the economic and social fields. Though I hope suspension will be brief, there are serious problems to be dealt with and it would be wrong to approach matters simply as caretakers. We shall be assisted in taking forward our work by the great achievements that have been brought about by all parties within the Assembly and the Executive. Despite the tensions, I believe the period of devolution was a great success, and a great advance for Northern Ireland. We must get back as soon as possible to the position where people in Northern Ireland are in charge of their own affairs.

With suspension, the Assembly and its committees can no longer meet. We hope suspension will be short-lived, and we recognise that Assembly Members should, for the time being, continue to represent their constituencies.

But I believe there will be an expectation that the removal of the Assembly’s core functions must be reflected in arrangements for it and its members. We envisage therefore, with effect from next month, bringing Assembly members’ salaries back to the levels that applied in the shadow period (adjusted for subsequent increases to date). We shall immediately review closely the allowances that are paid in the Assembly, from the same perspective. Assembly members will for the present continue to have access to Parliament Buildings in order to carry out their constituency work.

But if the Assembly remains without its essential responsibilities, I believe these arrangements will need to be looked at again. We shall therefore review the situation by the end of the year.

The Assembly has an impressive record to its credit. It has been a forum for dialogue between different strains of political thought unprecedented in Northern Ireland, but essential to our future. Its committees have been diligent in holding the Executive to account, to the great benefit of public administration. If I may say so, I admire the way you yourself have guided it in the most tense situations.

We must do all we can to restore it, and the other institutions, as soon as possible. I shall do all I can to bring that about."

Signed by the Secretary of State.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Mr Speaker, will you inform the House if the Secretary of State talked to you about the letter before you received it? If that was not so, is it not a matter of grave discourtesy on his part that he did not consult with you at the same time as he consulted with party leaders?

With regard to payments, can you confirm that the salaries of those who are now employed in party offices and registered as workers in those offices for Members of the Assembly will remain as they are, just as your salary will remain as it is?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

First, the Secretary of State has written to me, and I fully expect that there will be further communication. However, in direct response to the Member’s question, it was obviously much more important that he communicate with party leaders, such as the Member, rather than with me.

As for concerns about the other arrangements to which the Member refers, I cannot immediately be more clear than by recounting the content of the letter from the Secretary of State. However, it may be of assistance if I remind Members of some of the administrative arrangements that there were during the previous suspension, particularly in view of some of the Member’s comments. Clearly there were some misunderstandings, and I shall seek to correct at least one of them.

In the previous situation, direct rule was reinstated and the Assembly remained in place, but the Assembly and its Committees could not meet or discuss business, and that included the Assembly Commission. Those in elected office — Ministers, junior Ministers, Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Statutory Committees — could no longer hold office. Participation in the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council was suspended. No functions could be conferred on implementation bodies. Members had the usual access to Parliament Buildings. Members’ salaries were abated to the pre-devolution level, and the office cost allowances were also abated to the pre-devolution level, but not until the end of that financial year. Party allowance was reduced, and that obviously might have a bearing, if it were mirrored on this occasion, on the Member’s question about party staff, but I cannot give him any more enlightenment on that, for I have none myself. The childcare allowance was not affected.

The Speaker continued to hold office, but his salary was abated to pre-devolution level, and I have no expectation that it will be otherwise on this occasion, Dr Paisley — unless, in your conversation with the Secretary of State, you put a good word in for me. I am sure that it would carry heavily, were you to do so.

Committee Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons did not receive salaries for their work in chairing Committees. Some other measures, which were not referred to in the correspondence from the previous Secretary of State, came into place during the last suspension. The Secretary of State discharged the functions of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. During the first six months of suspension, legislation on devolved matters was made by Order in Council at Westminster, and the Secretary of State could extend that for periods of up to six months if required. Northern Ireland Departments discharged their functions subject to the direction and control of the Secretary of State, who appointed NIO Ministers to look after those functions.

As far as the Assembly Commission was concerned, its functions were taken over directly by the Secretary of State, and the accounting officer gave account of his functions in that way.

I trust that that gives some clarity on some of the important matters that the Member raised.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Will you clarify the standing of the intergovernmental bodies? There has been a lot of discussion in the press about their going from strength to strength, but from what you read out, I think that such progress will be limited by the agreement, which I have been reading this morning.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As far as I am concerned, my responsibility is to try to interpret the procedures of this House. Interpretation of the agreement goes well beyond that. Foreseeing what politicians at any level may choose to do subsequent to today would require a prophet not a Speaker, and, as the Member knows, I am not even the son of a prophet; I am just the son of a poor Presbyterian minister.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity to declare the suspension of the Executive and the Assembly Committees in the House. That might have given Members an opportunity to explore with him his comment on the Assembly’s great achievements. It would be interesting to hear how he would manage to put a spin on that. In the wider community, there is cause to acknowledge the great achievement that will occur when the House rises and we see an end to the terms of the two Sinn Féin Ministers. It is cause for rejoicing in Northern Ireland —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Can I ask the Member for his point of order?

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Thank you very much.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am not sure that there is a ruling for me to give in regard to that.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Is it not ironic that on the day on which the House loses any power that it has, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party is more concerned about wages and salaries than he is about contributing to the welfare of our senior citizens who need personal care?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member must know that what he is raising is not a point of order and that this is not an opportunity for debate.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

My point of order concerns a matter that is recorded in Hansard. During the debate on the review of post-primary education on Tuesday 8 October, the Minister of Education, in reference to the transfer test, said:

"Change will be implemented in a considered, planned manner, which will lead to real improvement in our education system.

The current arrangements, including the transfer test, must remain in place until decisions are taken on the post-primary review." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 18, p386].

Within days of that statement, the Minister acted arbitrarily to abolish the 11-plus. Given his conduct, his approach to the House and his subsequent actions, is that a matter to which the Speaker should give some consideration?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

There will be an opportunity during Question Time to ask questions of the Minister. It remains to be seen whether what he said to the House, as recorded in Hansard, or what he said outside the House, as recorded and advised by the Member, turns out to be the more accurate.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps you can inform the House whether the Executive ratified the highly cynical and highly political decision that the Minister of Education made to declare a date for the ending of the 11-plus tests. Indeed, was that decision even raised with the Executive? If not, does the Minister have the power to make such a decision without reference to the Executive, the Committee for Education or the Assembly, as was promised by the First Minister? Is this yet another example of the First Minister breaking a promise, particularly as he told us that IRA/Sinn Féin Ministers would be held to account and would not be able to act as despots?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Again, if the Member chooses, he may ask appropriate supplementary questions of the Minister this afternoon if the opportunity arises for him.

I cannot say whether this was a matter agreed by the Executive or not; that is clearly a matter for the Executive. As far as procedure is concerned, it is my understanding — but no more than that — that developments of policy in this way are matters to be agreed by the Executive. The Member may care to raise directly with the Minister or other Members of the Executive whether the Executive agreed that matter.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 24 July the Secretary of State told the House of Commons that he would not hesitate to send to you — and, through you, to the Floor of the House — a motion to exclude Sinn Féin/IRA if it was found to be in further breach of its obligations. Has the Secretary of State raised that possibility with you, and have you discussed it?

Furthermore, can you say whether any other parties have signed the exclusion motion, currently in the Business Office, designed to exclude IRA/Sinn Féin? Outside the House, I hear parties, particularly the Ulster Unionist Party, calling for the exclusion of Sinn Féin/IRA, but they are failing to take the steps necessary to have the matter debated in the Assembly.

Can you tell the House whether the matters listed in today’s Order Paper that relate to legislation will be taken today despite the Assembly’s imminent suspension? When suspension kicks in, what will happen to the legislation that is currently in Committee or on the Floor of the House?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member will understand that it is not normally my practice to describe discussions that have, or have not, taken place with the Secretary of State, Ministers or parties. It is wise for me to maintain that practice. However, I can confirm to the Member and to the House that I have not received any such exclusion motion from the Secretary of State under the relevant section.

I am not aware precisely which Members have or have not signed a motion on the No Day Named List, but that is a matter of public record; there is no obstruction to any Member looking at the names that are on that list. If they wish to make account of that, that is entirely a matter for themselves, not for me. It would, of course, be a matter for the Business Committee, and the Member is familiar with the procedure to be followed if there are sufficient signatures.

With regard to today’s Order Paper, we shall simply proceed in the normal fashion, as is proper, and, I trust, in the normal congenial, courteous and parliamentary fashion in which Members have been in the habit of conducting themselves here, doing our duty and fulfilling our responsibilities to those who have elected us.

I am considering the matter of the status of legislation, but I have one or two comments to make. First, it seems to me that during the period of suspension, it will be as though that legislation were frozen, and it may well be that at the end of suspension, it can be taken up as though the clock had stopped and were restarted — in the same way as is the case with ministerial office and chairmanship of Committees, and so forth. However, I say that not as a ruling, because I want to look more fully at the legalities of that. If we find ourselves in that circumstance, I will then give an appropriate ruling.

However, it is entirely possible that the Secretary of State and his Ministers may regard some of the legislation that has been partly carried through the Assembly as being of such importance, timeliness or urgency that they may choose to convert it into a form in which it might suitably be passed at Westminster, should they acquire the necessary parliamentary time. If that were to be the case, naturally such legislation carried through would fall when the Assembly returned. That is the best guidance I can give the Member and the House in the present circumstances.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Mr Speaker, while you cannot confirm which parties or groupings have signed the motion sent in by my hon Friends and other Colleagues, can you confirm that no other political party has forwarded an exclusion motion to you, for example, the Ulster Unionist party?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As far as I am aware we would not be very accepting of further motions coming forward on something that was already there, unless there was very good reason for doing so. I am not aware of anything else having come forward. However, it is not a matter that I checked before coming into the Chamber. The Member is entitled to checked the matter in the Business Office.

Having received no further requests for points of order, we will move to the next item.

Public Petition: Neglect of the Gray’s Hill Area in North Down

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Ms Morrice has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the residents and the business community from the Gray’s Hill area of Bangor in north Down.

More than 100 people have signed the petition, which highlights the neglect of the area and calls for its improvement in accordance with the town centre management strategy prepared by Ferguson & McIlveen. This major gateway into Bangor is a mixed residential and commercial street which suffers from speeding traffic, a lack of parking management and general neglect. The petition emphasises the broad concern about the matter in the north Down area. As you can see, Mr Speaker, I continue to work for my constituents, and I will keep on doing so.

Ms Morrice moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will send a copy of the petition to the Minister for Social Development, when such a Minister has been appointed. In the meantime, I will send a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development.

Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill: Second Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I advise the House that I have received a valid petition of concern in respect of this Bill, in accordance with Standing Order 27. No vote can therefore be held on its Second Stage until at least one day has passed.

The following motion stood in the Order Paper:

That the Second Stage of the Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill (NIA 8/02) be agreed. – [The First Minister (Mr Trimble) and the Deputy First Minister (Mr Durkan).]

Motion not moved.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, can you say whether, when this information is sent to the Northern Ireland Office, it will also carry the warning that a reasoned amendment was tabled, which was supported by the majority of parties in the House?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I can confirm that the fact that the Member has raised the point of order and has tabled a reasoned amendment will clearly be in Hansard for forwarding to whichever Minister addresses the matter. Whether that amendment would have had the support of the majority of Members is, of course, one of the great unknowns of life.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will call Mr Dodds, and then we will have a further point of order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

For the second week in a row, this business has not proceeded. Last week we were told that the two junior Ministers were not in a position to move the business because the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were not in the Chamber. The junior Ministers have obviously been trusted with the onerous job of not moving the motion, so they have been trusted with something.

It is outrageous that, for two weeks in a row, this item has been listed on the Order Paper and, for two weeks in a row, it has gone absolutely nowhere. We have the two junior Ministers from OFMDFM telling us that the motion is not moved. The important point I want to make is that, as Mr Billy Hutchinson has said, and as many Members will agree, the motion is not being moved today because the Ministers know that it would not be approved. It would not pass through the House. The clear message that should be given to any Minister who may take over this responsibility is that there is a groundswell of opinion in the House against the contents of the Bill.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Let me remain with the point of order. Of course it is regrettable if matters are tabled on an Order Paper two weeks in a row and it is not possible to proceed with them. I suspect that, in the greater scheme of things, it is one of the less regrettable things about today, but that is another matter. With regard to the question of support, I cannot rule on that matter as a point of order.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mr Speaker, the Order Paper states that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would move the Second Stage of the Bill, although I understand that the Bill is in the name of Mr Haughey, but he did not withdraw it. Is it one of the more cowardly acts of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to send its deputies here to do this work?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is quite clearly in order for any Minister representing the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to proceed with such a Bill and to handle it as has been agreed in that Office.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any means by which the Assembly can express its concerns about the Bill to the Northern Ireland Office? Given that no public consultation has taken place on the Bill, it would be a matter of concern if the Northern Ireland Office rushed it through.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I understand entirely why the Member has a specific concern about the Bill, as he is the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre. However, I think that he is aware that there is no facility for the Assembly to do that in the short time that appears to be available to us for the rest of today other than through the points of order that the Member and others have already raised.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you will confirm that the record of today’s proceedings and the views expressed by Members through points of order will be one method by which the Northern Ireland Office will be made aware of the Assembly’s view on this matter. However, is it not the case that this business was on the Order Paper last week and that it was announced that it could not be dealt with, although the two junior Ministers were present in the House on that occasion and could have moved it? We were told that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister wished to be present to hear the Assembly’s views. Is it not the case that the two junior Ministers came today intent on moving the Bill and decided not to move it only when they saw that there was a petition of concern signed by over 30 Members?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member is tempting me to look into what is going on in the minds of the junior Ministers, but I am on duty today as the Speaker, and not in any other capacity.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Mr Speaker do you attribute any significance to the suspension by the Secretary of State, whose words you read out, taking place at midnight tonight, given that the Bill was on the Order Paper to be dealt with today?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am not quite sure that I see the connection that appears to be in the Member’s mind. As I understand it, such suspensions can take place only at midnight; there might be a question of whether it was midnight tonight, midnight last night, or midnight on another night, but they must take place at midnight. As I understand it, that is the proper procedure for them.

There are several points of order, and I will come to Minister Haughey’s if possible.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When did you receive notice of the withdrawal of the Bill? Did it take two lecterns in front of two Ministers to announce "Not moved"?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member must know that if matters are withdrawn in advance of the sitting, as was the case last week, I make that clear. However, the Ministers have taken the decision not to move the Second Stage of the Bill. That is clear parliamentary procedure.

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The decision not to move the Second Stage of the Bill was taken long before Mr Leslie or I knew that there was a petition of concern. That is a matter of fact.

On a second point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for Members to request you to convey the feelings of the House to the Northern Ireland Office when the opinion of the House has not been recorded by means of a vote?

Will you confirm that it has been indicated to you that it is the DUP, in alliance with Sinn Féin, that opposes the Bill, and that those two parties do not constitute a majority of the Members of the House? [Interruption].

12.30 pm

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I am sure that the House is grateful to the Member for confirming when the decision was taken. As for the question of how much support or otherwise there is for the Bill, the reasoned amendment or whatever, I can say only what I have said already — there cannot be an assumption of any particular support or lack of support, save for one particular fact, which is that the petition of concern contained 32 signatures. Other than that, no assumption can be made about support for any matter that has not come before the House and been voted on in the usual way.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

There has been much discussion about the petition of concern. Will you confirm, Mr Speaker, that the motion must receive cross-community support in order for approval to be granted? Will you confirm that such cross-community support is also required for the House to exclude Sinn Féin?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I can confirm both those matters. Once a petition of concern has been certified as valid and has been received in due time, it postpones the vote and requires it to have cross-community support. The Member is correct that the same applies to an exclusion motion.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Are you concerned, Mr Speaker, to learn from the junior Minister that the decision not to move the motion was taken a long time ago, yet you were not informed of it? Is that not a grave discourtesy to the Assembly, and should the Minister not be asked to get to his feet and apologise? [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. When Members call for such action, I trust that they are not, as it would appear to be in parliamentary terms, referring to the Speaker. The Speaker does his best with all the ignorance at his disposal in all these various ways.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Lest the collaboration between the DUP and Sinn Féin alarm junior Minister Haughey, I advise him that the Women’s Coalition was only too glad to sign the petition of concern on this occasion.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to the point of order that junior Minister Haughey raised, is it not the case that had he moved the Second Stage today the House could have made a decision? He could have found out exactly how the House feels. An amendment was tabled, and it would have had to be called today.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I can confirm that if the matter had proceeded, the amendment standing in the name of Mr Billy Hutchinson would have been taken. However, given the petition of concern, which was headed up by Dr Paisley, had the reasoned amendment not been made, the view of the House would not have been able to be ascertained until at least one day hence.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Further to the point of order that Mr Peter Robinson raised, when the motion that the Second Stage be agreed was not moved last week, Mr Speaker, you said that you were notified in time and were therefore able to make an announcement at the beginning of proceedings. That being the case, why was the same procedure not followed on this occasion? If it was not followed, does that not amount to a grave discourtesy to the Speaker?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Not necessarily. A different procedure has been followed: in one case the motion has been withdrawn, and in another it has not been moved. Other procedures might also have been used. Members have a range of possibilities from which to choose. However, the Member has given his view and interpretation of proceedings.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has either of the junior Ministers, the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister informed you which parts of the Bill they want the Secretary of State to deal with?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It would not be appropriate for Ministers to take action of that kind in respect of the Speaker. It is not a procedural matter and, insofar as there might be any procedures involved, they would not be procedures in this place, but in another place. That is not a matter which has been referred to, nor would I expect it to be.

I know that Members have a sense that there is a time within which they must raise all their points of order for the rest of the session, but we must try to move on.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

We can take this up this afternoon, if you want to draw it to a close now.

Can you confirm that no Sinn Féin Members signed the petition of concern that was tabled? The comments from across the House show widespread party opposition to the Bill. Never have so many dispatch boxes been employed to achieve, and to say, so little. Can you also confirm that enough Members signed the petition of concern — including enough Unionists for the purposes of the cross-community vote — to ensure that the Bill would not have got anywhere?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I can confirm what the Member said about there being a valid number of signatures. However, as I have previously indicated, it is not appropriate for me to go through whose name is or is not on the petition of concern, save that it is a matter of record which is in the Business Office and which Members can follow up as they wish.

Draft Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That the Department for Employment and Learning’s draft Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers be approved.[Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The draft code was laid before the Assembly on 24 September 2002 and is subject to affirmative resolution. On approval by the Assembly the draft code becomes the code, and the Department will make an Order bringing it into effect on the appointed day.

The draft code is issued under article 95 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which gives the Department power, subject to Assembly approval, to issue codes for the purpose of improving industrial relations. The draft code takes account of the current legislative provisions on industrial action ballots and notice to employers, including those contained in the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. It is intended as a practical instrument to assist a range of individuals and organisations, including employers, trade unions and employees, to regulate and improve industrial relations. It also provides guidance on statutory rights.

The draft code is relevant to any union involved in industrial action ballots, to employers who are affected by them and to union members who may be asked to vote. The draft code seeks to ensure that appropriate action is taken to resolve disputes before industrial action. It sets out details of best practice on whether a ballot is appropriate, how to prepare for a ballot, the specific process and steps to be followed when holding a ballot, and what action should be taken following a ballot. It provides helpful summaries of what the current legislation requires by way of consultation by the employer and the unions.

The draft code does not impose legal obligations, and failure to observe it does not render anyone liable to proceedings. However, it may be admissible in evidence before an industrial tribunal or the industrial court, if it is deemed to be relevant. Full consultation has taken place in Northern Ireland on the content of the draft code. I commend the draft code to the Assembly.

(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair).

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I support the motion. The Committee considered the code of practice at its meeting on 3 October 2002 and supports it. It has been well described by the Minister. It seems to be based on a similar code in Great Britain, produced by the Department of Trade and Industry. Therefore the production of the code maintains parity with Great Britain. I urge the House to support the motion.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I thank the Chairperson for his remarks. The draft code sets out fair and reasonable procedures for parties to adopt when a ballot is to be held. It balances the duties of employers and trade unions, with the emphasis on responsible behaviour.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Department for Employment and Learning’s draft Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers be approved.

Draft Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That the Labour Relations Agency’s draft Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures be approved.

The draft code was laid before the Assembly on 24 September 2002 and is subject to affirmation by the Assembly. On approval by the Assembly, the draft code becomes the code, and the Department will make an Order bringing it into effect on an appointed day.

The draft code is issued under article 90 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which gives the Labour Relations Agency power, subject to departmental and Assembly approval, to issue codes for the purpose of improving industrial relations. The draft code is a revision of an existing code of practice on disciplinary procedures and practices in employment that was issued by the Labour Relations Agency in November 1990.

The draft code will replace the old one. The main reason for the revision is the need for the draft code to take account of a legislative change. Article 12 of the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 provided for a new statutory right for individuals to be accompanied at certain disciplinary and grievance hearings. That right came into effect on 2 June 2002. The draft code gives practical guidance to employers, workers and workers’ representatives who are involved in grievance and disciplinary matters.

In every organisation there should be clearly understood arrangements and principles, however simple, which are consistent with the underlying intentions set out in the draft code. The draft code addresses disciplinary issues relating to problems of conduct or performance and how employers seek to address them. It provides guidance on the practices and procedures that could, and indeed, in some instances should, be followed. It considers how employers can best handle the grievances that individuals bring to them and provides guidance on the statutory right of workers to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing.

The code highlights the best practice principles in terms of rules and procedures. It outlines appropriate structures and the balance between formal and informal processes, provides guidance on how decisions should be made and recorded, and suggests timescales by which formal warnings may be regarded as spent. The impact assessment undertaken on the draft code concludes that it will not disadvantage any of the groups specified in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; nor will it place any additional costs on employers. It will have a positive impact in the workplace.

While failure to observe any provision of the draft code does not of itself render anyone liable to proceedings, it may be admissible in evidence in any proceedings before an industrial tribunal or the industrial court, if deemed to be relevant. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I support the motion. The Committee considered the draft code at its meeting on Thursday 3 October 2002. As the Minister said, the code is being introduced as a replacement for an existing code of practice, and it attempts to give helpful guidance to employers and employees. It is based on a similar code in Great Britain produced by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which is the GB equivalent of the Labour Relations Agency. Therefore the production of the code maintains parity with Great Britain. As the Minister said, the regulatory and equality impact assessments have judged the code favourably. I urge the House to support the motion.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I welcome the Chairperson’s remarks. The draft code sets out practical guidance which aims to promote the improvement of industrial relations and, therefore, ultimately enhance the economic performance of industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Labour Relations Agency’s draft Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures be approved.

Draft Code of Practice on Redundancy Consultation and Procedures

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That the Labour Relations Agency’s draft Code of Practice on Redundancy Consultation and Procedures be approved.

The draft code was laid before the Assembly on 24 September 2002, and it is subject to the Assembly’s approval. The draft code is issued under article 90 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which, subject to departmental and Assembly approval, gives the Labour Relations Agency power to issue codes for the purpose of improving industrial relations.

The draft code is a revision of an existing code of practice on redundancy consultation and procedures that was issued in September 1998. The revisions take account of changes to the legislative provisions on consultation and collective redundancies as a consequence of the enactment of the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999. The draft code will replace the old one. On approval by the Assembly, this draft code becomes the code, and the Department will make an Order bringing it into effect on an appointed day.

Members will agree that all organisations must adapt to economic and technological change in order to remain viable. Sometimes this may necessitate a change in their employment requirements with regard to the numbers and skills of the employees involved. In circumstances where redundancy becomes necessary, employers should recognise the damaging effects this may have on employees and should, therefore, handle redundancies with due care and consideration.

The aim of the code is to provide best practice guidance on redundancies — from early consultation about the likelihood of redundancies to the management of the process. It seeks to encourage all organisations to agree a framework within which a change in employment may be handled fairly, effectively and comprehensibly. The code seeks to ensure that employers are aware of their statutory obligations and employees of their entitlements under the relevant legislation. The code also gives guidance on the main features of a redundancy procedure.

In every organisation there should be clearly understood arrangements and principles, however simple, which are consistent with the underlying intentions set out in the draft code. The draft code provides summaries of what the current legislation requires by way of consultation by the employer with employees or their representatives when a redundancy situation is proposed, including such matters as the election of representatives, if necessary. It suggests ways of reducing or avoiding compulsory redundancies, sets out the principles of fair selection of those to be made redundant and outlines the rights of an employee when under notice of redundancy.

The impact assessments undertaken on the draft code conclude that it will not disadvantage any of the section 75 groups; it will place no additional costs on employers; and it will have a positive impact in the workplace. Although failure to observe any provision of the draft code does not of itself render anyone liable to proceedings, it may be admissible in evidence in any proceedings before an industrial tribunal or the industrial court if it is deemed to be relevant. I commend the draft code to the Assembly.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I support the motion, as do the majority of Committee members. It was considered at our meeting on 3 October. I sincerely hope that the issue of redundancy consultation does not become one of personal interest to myself and other MLAs. Seriously, it is an important issue. As the Minister rightly said, it is important that codes of practice be in place to attempt to achieve best practice in the field of industrial relations. The draft code is unique to Northern Ireland, but it revises an existing Northern Ireland code. The regulatory and equality impact assessments have been favourable in this case. I urge the House to support the motion.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I welcome the Committee Chairperson’s remarks. The draft code balances the duties of both employers and employees, with the emphasis on responsible behaviour. Prior to any proposed redundancies, proper adherence to the draft code will reduce the likelihood of conflict and the possibility of misunderstanding when redundancies are declared.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Labour Relations Agency’s draft Code of Practice on Redundancy Consultation and Procedures be approved.

Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (Assembly Standards) Bill: Period Extension

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

In view of circumstances outside the control of the Committee of the Centre, I beg to not move the motion.

Motion not moved.

Harbours Bill: Period Extension

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Acting on advice on this very sad day, I beg to not move the motion.

Motion not moved.

The sitting was suspended at 12.55 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

The Future of the Mater Hospital

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

On 2 July 2002, the McAuley Building was opened at the Mater Hospital. It is a new, state-of-the-art building that will service the hospital. It was called after Mother Catherine McAuley, a Catholic religious sister in the nineteenth century who founded the Sisters of Mercy, an order particularly dedicated to teaching and nursing. She was a sort of nineteenth-century Mother Teresa in Ireland. She and her sisters founded many schools, hospitals and other institutions the length and breadth of Ireland for the Irish people — Catholic and Protestant, from north and south. In many ways, together with other religious orders and people, both Catholic and Protestant, she established the foundations and infrastructure for schools, the education system and the health service in Ireland.

Part of those foundations was the Mater Hospital, which was founded in Belfast in 1883. By 1909, the hospital’s status in Ireland was such that it was recognised as a university teaching hospital. The Mater maternity unit was eventually opened in 1945, adding a further service to the hospital. In 1972, the hospital, which had previously been under Catholic control and which had been independent throughout its history, became part of the National Health Service. A deed of arrangement underpinned the transfer of the hospital to the NHS. That was a guarantee from the Government of the time that the hospital’s character and ethos would continue. I shall say more about that later.

Until 1972, the hospital was funded by the Young Philanthropists, of which my late father was a member. It was an imaginative and far-sighted group, for it saw that it was important to put moneys necessary for the hospital’s future into trust funds. Indeed, the group raised a great deal of money. Over the years, thanks to the financial wizardry of a very distinguished cleric called Monsignor Mullally, the money was transformed into a multimillion-pound fund. The upshot was that the McAuley Building was opened in July 2002. Built at the cost of £17 million, it was virtually a new hospital. None of that money came from the state. It was raised by generations of Belfast people. It was used to build and equip the building. It was, in effect, a gift of £17 million to the public Health Service by a private charitable trust.

The Mater Hospital has, however, been informed, following the Department’s document ‘Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures’, which was published in June 2002, that it is to be downgraded to a local hospital. It will no longer be an acute hospital. In substance, that means that its acute services will be systematically removed over several years. It will end up as little more than a glorified nursing home.

Despite what the Department says, the hospital will lose many of its services. It will lose its accident and emergency service, which — as those who live in north Belfast know — is crucial to the people of the area. That area has the lowest car ownership in Belfast — indeed, in Northern Ireland — yet the Department is persisting in its views. The Department also insists that intensive care and high dependency units will be removed. Inpatient general medicine, inpatient cardiology and the coronary care unit, inpatient diabetic services, inpatient respiratory medicine, inpatient general surgery, inpatient urology services, inpatient cardiac investigation, inpatient gynaecology, inpatient laboratory services and inpatient anaesthetic services will also go. I contend that there will be nothing left if the Department’s proposals are implemented.

The developing better services document takes the form of a White Paper. It not called a White Paper, but that is what it is. It represents the Department’s and the Minister’s thinking. In fact, the Minister had to be pushed into extending the period of consultation. She said that consultation should end in September 2002. That has now been extended to the end of October 2002. That demonstrates the Department’s commitment to the proposals contained in the document. There is no doubt that if the proposals are implemented, it will be the end of the Mater Hospital as an acute service hospital in Belfast.

Furthermore, the continuance of maternity services is also under threat. That threat is not as explicit as the threat to other services. The survival of the service is conditional upon the Mater Hospital’s working with the new centralised Belfast Maternity Service. That is code for "If you do not do what you are told, you will lose your maternity services". That is what the Minister and the Department are saying to the Mater Hospital.

The Department says that the Mater Hospital’s teaching status will remain. I mentioned that such was the status of the Mater Hospital at the beginning of the century that it was granted university teaching status. The Department says that that status will remain. How credible is that proposal, when the Minister is taking away the acute services that would encourage doctors and nurses to come to the Mater Hospital to train? Its teaching status might remain in name, but in reality it will not remain at all. It does not take a genius or a medical expert to reach that conclusion.

The Department says that the developing better services document is in line with the Hayes Report — the acute hospitals review group report. That is untrue. I ask Members to check the document and the Hayes Report. It is not in line with the proposal for partnership with the Whiteabbey Hospital to deliver acute services to north Belfast, Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey. It is not true for the Department to assert that.

There is no proposal to retain acute services at the Mater for the foreseeable future. Some of the acute services that I mentioned will be retained for a few years, but they will be phased out. However, the Hayes Report stated that acute services at the Mater would be retained for the foreseeable future — in other words, for an indefinite period. The Minister’s document does not say that; it says that it is merely a transitional arrangement. Further to that, the Hayes Report states that a regional service should be located in the Mater, but that is not mentioned in the Minister’s document at all.

The effect in north Belfast will be considerable and significant. The effect on employment alone will be substantial. Around 1,000 people are employed by the Mater Hospital. It is possibly one of the biggest employers in north Belfast. Ancillary, clerical, medical, clinical and nursing staff will be systematically removed. In a few years’ time, the number of employees might be down to 500 or 600 staff — and still falling. Think of the effect that that will have on north Belfast.

The latest analysis of north Belfast contained in the North Belfast Community Action Project Report states:

"The population served by the North and West Belfast Health & Social Services Trust has some of the poorest health and social care indices with high incidences of cancer, asthma, bronchitis and other diseases. Seventeen out of the 20 wards in North Belfast are in the 25% most health deprived wards in Northern Ireland. Ten out of 20 wards in the area are in the 25% of wards in Northern Ireland with the highest ratios for cancer. These are all causally linked to the levels of deprivation experienced by this population."

Acute hospital services will be removed from the people who most need them. What sort of madness is this coming from the Department of Health? North Belfast has some of the highest rates of suicide, substance abuse and mental ill health. How can any of these proposals ameliorate that situation?

The Mater Hospital serves the community, and has served it very well. Over 45,000 people have used the accident and emergency service in the Mater Hospital over the past year. There were 6,000 medical or surgical emergencies and 1,000 births. That is a more than creditable performance for any Northern Ireland hospital.

The Minister’s proposals are unacceptable and wrong. They are dangerous and will hurt the long-suffering people of north Belfast. They are an offence to good public policy. Is it not ironic that a Minister who is ostensibly committed to the equality agenda is, through her proposals, undermining that agenda and disadvantaging the people of north Belfast, Catholic and Protestant?

The proposals also run contrary to the deed of arrangement, because they undermine the historic character and ethos of the hospital. Not only are the proposals legally questionable, they are undoubtedly politically unacceptable and objectionable to the people of north Belfast. During this little political interlude, let us hope that the Minister will have a change of mind, or that her mind will be changed, by the time we return.

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

Wearing my hat as Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I wish to express my disappointment that no decisions have been made on the future of not only the Mater Hospital, but of all acute hospitals in Northern Ireland. I want to make it clear that I in no way point the finger at the Minister. Other reports were published long before the Hayes Report, but it is the most recent. It was followed by the Minister’s consultation document ‘Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures’. I hope that when the Assembly is reinstated the Minister, or any future Minister, will make decisions on that.

I will now speak not as Chairperson of the Committee but as MLA for West Belfast and as one who has spent many years in west and north Belfast — I sometimes say how many years, but I will decline to do so now. I have long experience of the Mater Hospital, the Royal Victoria Hospital and the City Hospital.

Alban Maginness has already mentioned the new £17 million development at the Mater Hospital. Every hospital has its origins, and people become attached to them. The Mater is in many ways unique, but I will not dwell on that point because it has already been well covered. It seems odd that it has been proposed that the Mater Hospital, with its new £17 million development, is to be stripped of its acute status.

Alban Maginness rightly says that ‘Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures’ is in effect a White Paper. When asked, the permanent secretary made it clear that it was a White Paper. The odds of the proposals contained in a White Paper being put into effect are at least 50 to one on. Consultation will still take place, and perhaps in special circumstances changes will be made, but as Members will know, generally speaking, the recommendations contained in a White Paper will be carried out. The part of the document that deals with organisation does not have "White Paper status", because it is part of the review of local services.

It is proposed in the document that the Mater Hospital become a local hospital and a key institution in the fields of medical and nurse training and that its links with Queen’s University be put on a statutory basis to formalise its role as a teaching hospital. I was taught in the Mater Hospital and also in the Royal. The teaching role of the Mater Hospital is well known in this country and far beyond. No formality or legal standing is needed in that regard. It is an outstanding teaching hospital. I find the suggestion that somebody from Queen’s University should be on the hospital’s board of management condescending. It is as if the hospital is being given some sort of important status when, in fact, it is being slowly destroyed by the removal of its acute services.

The Mater Hospital has been outstanding in its diagnosis and treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which is associated with emphysema, smoking and dust in the air. North Belfast has twice as many cases of that terrible condition as other parts of Northern Ireland. It seems odd that, although the Mater Hospital is so well established and recognised for its treatment of chest disease, it may lose its acute services over the next 10 years. The hospital has piloted a multidisciplinary approach to treating patients with COPD, and it is the only hospital in the North with a specialist COPD clinic. Only two years ago, a young nurse there was named UK Respiratory Nurse of the Year.

The McAuley Building houses facilities to provide the most advanced acute services for the benefit not only of its catchment area, but of a much wider community through regional and outreach services and clinics.

I speak not only from my own years of experience, but as someone who has visited the accident and emergency (A&E) departments in all the major hospitals, including the Mater Hospital. Let me take those of the Royal Victoria Hospital and Belfast City Hospital as examples. I have nothing but respect for the nurses, doctors and other staff who work there, but they cannot cope, and not only in winter. I shall not go into the whole matter of trolleys and people waiting, but acute services, especially A&E, are not coping.

I emphasise that the picture is the same in Belfast City Hospital and in Antrim Area Hospital. I have visited all those hospitals. I suppose that no matter what Maurice Hayes and his people said about hospitals, they could not possibly satisfy everyone. However, with regard to overall principles, I have no difficulty in accepting the Hayes Report, and I am aware of what it said about the Mater Hospital.

I understand that every politician will make a case for the hospital in his or her area. However, in respect of the Minister’s points, there is something about the Mater Hospital that is not fully realised. The Antrim Area Hospital and the Royal Victoria Hospital could not cope with north Belfast. It has nothing to do with sentiment, although that is involved in all hospitals. It comes down to the direct clinical issues that affect north Belfast, which Members will accept is the most impoverished area in these islands. To remove acute services — even in a few years’ time — is the beginning of the end of that hospital. It must be borne in mind that the other hospitals cannot cope.

I appreciate and understand that it was not easy for the Minister to make the decisions in her White Paper. Were someone to ask me what I recommended, I should not find it easy, taking account of the picture across Northern Ireland. However, the sums have either been done incorrectly or wrongly interpreted. I should like the Minister and her Department to examine those figures again. They must realise that the people of north Belfast — Catholic and Protestant alike — could not cope without the Mater Hospital. Its proud tradition extends to the Shankill Road, the Antrim Road, Glengormley and the ever-increasing population of Newtownabbey and beyond. As I said earlier, Antrim Area Hospital could not cope either.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

The Business Committee set a maximum of 60 minutes aside for this debate. Ten of those minutes will be allocated to the Minister. I simply ask Members who speak from this point on to bear that in mind. I have five or perhaps six Members on the list.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I shall endeavour to bear that in mind to allow others to make a contribution.

I thank Alban Maginness for raising this matter. He has very ably set out the case that must be made for the retention of services at the Mater Hospital. Most Members should be able to agree with that, and I concur with many of the remarks made by the Chairperson of the Health Committee, Dr Joe Hendron. He knows from his personal, professional experience how the Mater Hospital has met the needs of the people of north and west Belfast.

I remember that, a few years ago, a public meeting was called in Newtownabbey in relation to the proposals that had been announced for the Whiteabbey Hospital. Hundreds of people attended, including trade unionists, staff, doctors, people in the medical profession, people whose relatives had been treated at Whiteabbey Hospital and members of the public. The common cry at that meeting was that if, at some stage, as part of a devolved Government, there was a Minister from Northern Ireland, no locally based Minister could possibly take such a decision. Unfortunately, as a result of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s ‘Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures’ document, we are now faced with proposals that not only confirm the bad news about Whiteabbey Hospital, but deliver a bolt out of the blue for the Mater Hospital.

As was rightly stated by Mr Maginness and Dr Hendron, Dr Hayes did not suggest the sweeping, radical downgrading of the Mater Hospital that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has proposed. That must be emphasised, and, as demonstrated at a recent meeting of Belfast City Council, any attempt to pin the blame on the Hayes Report must be stopped.

The proposals are resisted and opposed across the community in north and west Belfast. I met recently with Lady McCollum and Patricia Gordon, community workers and medical staff. I visited the Mater Hospital and toured the McAuley Building. There is unanimous dismay and bewilderment at the decision to implement the proposals now, especially, as other Members stated, given that £17 million of investment was privately raised — with not a penny of that coming from the public purse. The suggestion is that the Mater Hospital should be downgraded to the same status as a local hospital.

Aside from the impact that that will have on the delivery of medical services in the most deprived and needy area of our Province, we must remember that the Mater Hospital, which serves both communities, is perhaps the biggest employer in the area. It is situated in Crumlin, which is the most deprived ward in Northern Ireland. When I toured the hospital, I was struck by the number of people from both sides of the community divide who work in it and who receive treatment in it. Both sets of people, regardless of their background, are devastated that the Mater Hospital is to be downgraded from its current status to nothing more than a local hospital.

It has been argued that some provision, such as maternity services, will be retained. However, if specialists such as anaesthetists are not retained, the long-term outlook for maternity services is poor, because it would not provide value for money to pay for those services simply to cover maternity provision. That the Mater Hospital could be retained as a major teaching hospital without the throughput of specialised services is not tenable and will not happen in practice.

The Minister is delivering a death knell to the Mater Hospital, unless she changes her mind; is forced to change her mind; or her successor reverses the disastrous course along which she seeks to set the hospital.

At a recent meeting of Belfast City Council, the political parties unanimously supported the retention of the Mater Hospital’s status. There is unanimous support in the communities, and it is to be hoped that there is unanimous support among political representatives. I appeal to the Department and to those civil servants who will guide and advise the person who succeeds the current Minister.

Perhaps the Minister and her party have decided that this attack on a vital service in the most needy community — north Belfast — will go ahead. However, I hope that the new Minister will be advised that the House has united in opposition to the proposal and that the clear message will go out that there should be no interference with, and no downgrading of, the services that the Mater Hospital provides. If anything, we should recognise the valuable contribution that the hospital has made over many years, and we should work to retain and strengthen it.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Although I accept the general thrust of ‘Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures’, issues such as the Mater Hospital must be sorted out. Given the needs of the local community and the standards that the hospital sets, its proposed services are insufficient.

I am very concerned about the proposal to remove accident and emergency (A&E) services from the hospital, bearing in mind what that would mean for the provision of acute services, particularly A&E services themselves. My worries about the removal of full casualty services from the Mater Hospital are not merely a matter of defending a facility in my constituency — although you may note, Mr Deputy Speaker, that all the Members from North Belfast agree on a lot of what is being said today, simply because of the hospital’s location.

However, as one of the most deprived areas of Ireland, North Belfast relies greatly on the Mater Hospital, which contributes to the health of the population. Mr Alban Maginness mentioned the number of patients who are treated, but he did so in a different context than I. There is no justification for the closure of the Mater Hospital’s A&E department. According to the figures that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety published last month, the Mater Hospital’s A&E department treats over 10,000 more patients each year than Daisy Hill Hospital and over 20,000 more than either the Causeway Hospital or the Downe Hospital, yet all those hospitals are earmarked for A&E services while the Mater Hospital is not.

I fully accept that A&E units require a certain throughput to maintain effectiveness and efficiency, but I cannot see any justification for failing the Mater on those grounds. Indeed, although we are all aware of the debates about the site of the acute hospital west of the Bann, the Mater’s A&E department treats more people than the Enniskillen and Omagh hospitals together. Even in Belfast, the Mater’s A&E department treats over 90% of the volume of patients who are treated at the City Hospital’s A&E department, and apparently treats them more efficiently.

We have two hospitals in the same city that treat roughly the same volume of people every year. One of those hospitals is located within a few hundred metres of the main trauma unit in the Six Counties, while the other is in another part of the city. What justification is there for favouring the hospital that is so close to the Royal Victoria Hospital? Considering the differences in the performances of those two units, the argument in favour of maintaining the Mater’s A&E department as part of the provision of casualty services in Belfast becomes stronger.

In developing better services, it is conceded that the proposed change in the role of the Mater Hospital will take some considerable time: it will be at least 10 years before anything is done with casualty provision there. A week in politics is a long time, and a decade is simply beyond reasonable foresight. How can anyone tell with any accuracy what the healthcare needs of the people of Belfast and, in particular those of north Belfast, will be in 2013?

That being so, is there any rationale for making decisions now about what should happen so far in the future? I urge the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to take that on board and guarantee to maintain the Mater Hospital indefinitely. That is not to say that with the properly funded development of reasonable trauma services in Belfast, there may not be a need in future to review the Mater’s A&E department, but we can have that debate when it comes.

Other Members have given reasons for maintaining and assisting the Mater. There have been 30 years of conflict, and north Belfast has seen a disproportionate amount of death, injury, imprisonment and militarisation. Its condition today is a consequence of decades of statutory neglect, and Mr Alban Maginness said that the amount of money that the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust, as opposed to the Executive, gives to the area speaks volumes. The Mater Hospital is an important local employer, and removing the A&E department will have a detrimental effect on the cohesion and morale of the hospital staff as a whole.

The staff of the Mater Hospital, whom I have also met, and the unions both fear that the removal of the A&E department will in turn undermine the hospital as a whole, compromising job security and the ability to attract doctors, nurses, and so forth. Some of the reductions in health services make no sense when political representatives from all parties are arguing for more resources in north Belfast for education, youth provision, job creation, leisure provision, and so forth. Go raibh maith agat.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

Other Members have covered many of the issues. However, the only way the problems of health and acute hospitals will be solved is through the restructuring of the Health Service. When that time arrives we will have to consider the Mater Hospital’s position.

There are two issues involved. First, someone gave the Mater Hospital permission to build the fabulous McAuley Building, because it was felt that more beds were needed. Why did that happen? The money did not come from the Government; the community raised it, and it could have been better spent elsewhere. Everyone knows that in north Belfast health issues such as mental health and the levels of suicide have been neglected. Unfortunately, the Government gave the Mater Hospital that permission and, in many ways, gave it a vision for the future.

The second issue relates to the contradictions in the acute hospitals review group report with regard to what is being said now. Those contradictions have been well rehearsed. There was a proposal for the partnership of the Mater Hospital with the Whiteabbey Hospital for the provision of services for north Belfast, Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus. Where has that proposal gone? It was included in the recommendations of the review group. We were also told that a regional service would be provided at the Mater Hospital. That has now gone.

I would like to hear from the Minister why permission was given to build the McAuley Building when the situation was to change. Also, why are there contradictions between the two reports?

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

As a former medical registrar at the Mater Infirmorum Hospital, I add my support to the retention of this great and unique hospital. Following a visit to Lourdes, I wrote my second book, ‘Bangor: Light of the World’, which told how Bangor became the focus of a religious life of great depth and power in the early medieval period of Europe. With the fall of the Roman Empire, Irish and British monks were left to salvage what was left of Christian civilisation and share in its traditions the secrets of wisdom, justice and mercy for all mankind. That is what the Mater Hospital means to me.

There are many who believe that we have reached a stage of nothingness and have invented the philosophy of the void. The wisdom that makes the Mater Hospital what it is is not irrelevant today, especially in our present circumstances. It is not just an embodiment of what is or even what will be; it is a temple built with living stones, with doctors, nurses and auxiliaries from both the active and contemplative life from both religious traditions, dedicated to the rights and duties of the person, imbued with a sense of honour, justice, mercy and self-sacrifice and of holy hope and high humility. Their patients are from the Shankill and the New Lodge roads. They are all asking, as one, for entry to their own sanctuary. They are the secret suffering poor of north Belfast, but they are all pilgrims on the road to paradise.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I support the comments of Mr Maginness. Perhaps no one in the House knows, but in the dying days of the old Stormont Parliament, I was Leader of the Opposition, which consisted of the Member of Parliament for the Shankill Road, Mr Desmond Boal; the Member of Parliament for Woodvale, Mr Johnny McQuade; and my Colleague from South Antrim, Rev William Beattie. If Members care to read that Hansard, they will find that the four of us supported, and gave unanimous approval for, the Mater Hospital to be given grants by the Government and to be rightly treated. Some people like to paint us as anti-Catholic, anti-Roman Catholic, and so on, but if Members read that debate, they will realise just where we stand.

The Mater Hospital has a right to exist, and it needs to exist. As I have seen in my area, once acute services are taken away from a hospital, its position is destroyed, and it ceases to be a real hospital. I am glad to see that Dr Hendron agrees with that. It is a fact.

If ever the Mater Hospital was needed as an acute services hospital, it is today; there is a crying need for its services. It is located in an area of dense housing and intense poverty. If there was ever a time when we should maintain the hospital, it is now. What grieves me is that, while many hospitals such as the Mater Hospital have been supported and maintained by the voluntary contributions of charitable groups, the Department has stolen the money that those charities gave.

In my area, we helped to lead actions to raise large sums of money for a special heart treatment service in Ballymena Hospital. The Department stole that money and took it away to Antrim. No harm to the people of Antrim — including the Deputy Speaker — but they did not raise that money. It was raised for my area, and those benefits should have remained in that area. As was rightly said by one Member, planners tell people to give their money to ensure that hospital extensions are possible, but at the end of the day, the benefit may be taken away from them.

I want to end on a good note. Although I would not cross every "t" and dot every "i" of what Dr Adamson said, he is my friend. He used to give me jags, and every time I left for a Third-World country, he came to my home and jagged me with great relish, as an Official Unionist would want to jag Democratic Unionist flesh, but I never held that against him.

The hospital that has done this work; the people who backed the hospital with their gifts and all its workers from both sides of the community deserve to be supported. I trust that, if it is the last thing that this Assembly does, it will save the Mater Hospital from being demoralised and reduced to being a glorified nursing home. The Mater Hospital should be maintained as a thoroughgoing acute hospital, giving the people of that area all the services that they deserve and need.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Dr Paisley, you have tremendous trust in your doctor. [Laughter].

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I will not take a moment. I just want to say that I have some experience of the Mater Hospital. My mother, who suffered acutely from a serious problem before the war, went there in an emergency and recovered. I had many friends in the RUC — now the PSNI — who were very happy to be taken there as a result of bombings and shootings, and so on, because they believed that they would receive the best of attention, irrespective of what the political slant might be.

It strikes me as particularly wrong that £17 million collected by people years ago — which is probably worth about £80 million in today’s terms — should be now seen as simply a resource to be absorbed. The attitude seems to be: "Never mind where it came from or what the motives were for collecting it". That is quite wrong. I beg the Minister in her last few hours to reconsider the matter to see whether some of the phrases used in Dr Hayes’s report in relation to the Mater Hospital might be given rather more favourable connotations. I do not doubt that, being the man he is, he was probably keen not to show favouritism to a hospital of which he was chairman for so many years.

Possibly, he was almost too fair. I ask the Minister to re-examine the issue to see if, at least, the Mater’s teaching and accident and emergency roles can be retained. It would be to the benefit of the entire country to see in the Chamber, where so many antipathetic remarks have been made among parties, unanimity from every party in order to save the Mater Hospital.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá mo chuid moltaí do thodhchaí Ospidéal an Mater leagtha amach i mo cháipéis chomhairliúcháin ‘Seirbhísí Níos Fearr a Fhorbairt: Ospidéil a Nuachóiriú agus Struchtúir a Leasú’. An chéad rud is mian liom a rá is é nach raibh sé riamh i gceist go dtarlódh na hathruithe atá molta agam thar oíche. Leanfaidh an Mater de bheith ina ospidéal géarchúraim go ceann i bhfad ina mbeidh raon iomlán de ghéarsheirbhísí ar fáil. Tiocfaidh an comhairliúchán chun críche ar 31 Deireadh Fómhair agus is mian liom béim a leagan air nach ndéanfar aon chinneadh ar aon cheann de mo chuid moltaí go dtí go mbeidh faill agam mo mhachnamh a dhéanamh ar iomlán na fianaise agus an eolais dá bhfuil ar fáil.

Aithním, áfach, gur ábhar imní do fhoireann an Mater agus do mhuintir thuaisceart Bhéal Feirste mo mholadh gur chóir go ndéanfaí ospidéal áitiúil nua-aimseartha den Mater, agus is maith liom an deis seo a bheith agam tabhairt faoin imní sin.

Proposals for the future of the Mater Hospital are set out in the consultation document ‘Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures’. The changes proposed were never planned to happen overnight. The Mater Hospital will continue as an acute hospital for the foreseeable future, providing a full range of acute services. The consultation will end on 31 October, and I stress that no decisions will be made on any of the proposals until there has been an opportunity to consider fully all the evidence and information available.

However, I recognise that the proposal that the Mater Hospital should become a modern local hospital has caused concern, both to its staff and to the people of north Belfast. I welcome this opportunity to address their concerns.

My objective is to provide high-quality modern hospital services to the population here. It is clear that hospitals in future will need to collaborate as part of clinical networks. Proposals for the Mater Hospital are that it should become a modern local hospital with strong clinical links to the acute hospitals network, both at the Royal Group of Hospitals and Belfast City Hospital. I would expect the Mater, as a local hospital, to make full use of its modern facilities to provide increasingly sophisticated methods of investigation, diagnosis and day procedures.

In relation to the recent £17 million investment and the tremendous work done by people in the community to bring that about, we must in future ensure that the investment in the Mater is used to its fullest in serving the population of the area. That must be given careful consideration before coming to any final decisions.

Under these proposals, the Mater Hospital will also provide a base for a range of expert clinicians, specialist nurses and other health professionals, who will relate to the hospital needs of the population it serves, making a distinctive contribution to the overall provision of modern, high-quality services in the heart of the local community. Developing local hospitals in this way will require considerable and continuing investment in modern equipment and staff training.

I have proposed that maternity services at the Mater Hospital should be retained, but the hospital has been experiencing increasing difficulties in maintaining those services. Therefore, I have proposed that it should exploit its close proximity to the new centralised maternity hospital on either the Royal Group of Hospitals or Belfast City Hospital site to open up new opportunities for supporting maternity services at the Mater Hospital on a close partnership basis. I expect that the new centralised maternity hospital and the Mater Hospital will develop those opportunities to the full.

I also realise the concerns of the staff who live in north Belfast, where the Mater Hospital is a significant employer. They fear that their jobs might be lost in the hospital’s transformation to a modern local hospital. The Mater Hospital will continue to be a large and busy hospital, and it will continue to provide much-needed employment for the area.

It is not possible to be specific about how staff might be affected at this stage, and detailed work will need to be undertaken with the health and personal social services organisations and other key interested parties to identify long-term staffing needs. During the consultation process, I was aware of the growing cross-party and cross-community support for retaining acute services at the Mater Hospital, as well as the strong lobby from the Mater Hospital Trust and staff at the hospital. I am sure that that will continue to be reflected in the responses to my consultation up until its close on 31 October, as it has been in Members’ contributions today.

I assure Members that, as stated in the report ‘Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures’, the importance of making full use of the modern facilities at the Mater Hospital is fully accepted. The hospital has an excellent range of facilities, and in any future configuration of hospital services we must ensure that those facilities are used to their best advantage through clinical networking and building on new achievements in medical treatment and technology.

Members raised points about the phasing out of services. Acute services will continue for the foreseeable future and will be reviewed according to levels of capacity and deprivation as those are assessed. There is no question of phasing out acute services over the years in the way that has been suggested. Any decisions will look at the needs assessed at a particular time and the overall capacity of the service to deliver those services to people in the area.

Teaching status will remain as part of a clinical network of acute and local hospitals, and opportunities for more rounded training for medical staff will be available.

Before coming to any decision on the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinic, we must look very carefully at the services provided in any area where such a disease is a feature of deprivation and associated ill health. A final decision has not been made, and the information referred to in this debate will be reflected in the responses to the consultation.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Will the Minister accept an intervention?

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

It is up to the Minister if she feels like giving way.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have been told that I have very limited time, and, therefore, I do not think it is possible.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

A very quick —

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Order. Does the Minister want to give way?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have had signals that my time is almost up, so, unfortunately, that will not be possible.

The points raised during the period of consultation, and those raised today, will be taken on board when considering the outcome of the consultation process. This is a real consultation process, as I have said in debates about other aspects of the consultation proposals. I have stressed that people’s views will be listened to and taken on board. The terminology used today should not suggest that the consultation process is just about going through the motions.

I thank Members for their contributions today and for the contact they had with me during the consultation period. I shall ask the Department to consider carefully the Mater Hospital’s future profile in the light of the deeply held cross-community and cross-party concerns expressed in the debate and elsewhere.

I stress that, in common with all my proposals to develop better services, no decisions have yet been taken. All the responses to the consultation, including any new evidence or information that arises from it, will be carefully considered before any final decisions are made on the Mater Hospital’s future.

I take this opportunity to add my voice to those that have paid tribute to the sterling work that has been carried out over the years by the staff, and those who support them, at the Mater Hospital. I pay tribute to those who have ensured that its services have been delivered. I thank Members for their kind words, and I shall ensure that they are passed on to the staff.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

Order. Ample opportunity was given this morning, and ample opportunity was taken this morning, to raise points of order.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

It is on a totally different matter.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I am taking no further points of order.

Adjourned at 4.57 pm.